[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70835-70839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30085]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 303


Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products 
Identification Act

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') announces 
amendments to Rule 7(c) of the Rules and Regulations Under the Textile 
Fiber Products Identification Act (``Textile Rules'') to establish a 
new generic fiber subclass name and definition for a subclass of 
polyester fibers manufactured by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company 
(``DuPont''), of Wilmington, Delaware. The amendments to Rule 7(c) 
establish the subclass name ``elasterell-p'' as an alternative to the 
generic name ``polyester'' for a specific subclass of inherently 
elastic, multicomponent textile fibers defined in the amendments, and 
previously referred to by DuPont as ``T400.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Blickman, Attorney, Division of 
Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 
Washington, D.C., 20580; (202) 326-3038.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

    Section 4(b)(1) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act 
(``Act'') declares that a textile product will be misbranded unless it 
is labeled to show, among other elements, the percentages, by weight, 
of the constituent fibers in the product, designated by their generic 
names and in order of predominance by weight. 15 U.S.C. 70b(b)(1). 
Section 4(c) of the Act provides that the same information required by 
section 4(b)(1) (except the percentages) must appear in written 
advertisements if any disclosure or implication of fiber content is 
made regarding a covered textile product. 15 U.S.C. 70b(c). Section 
7(c) directs the Commission to promulgate such rules, including the 
establishment of generic names of manufactured fibers, as are necessary 
to enforce the Act's directives. 15 U.S.C. 70e(c).
    Rule 6 of the Textile Rules (16 CFR 303.6) requires manufacturers 
to use the generic names of the fibers contained in their textile 
products in making required fiber content disclosures on labels. Rule 7 
of the Textile Rules (16 CFR 303.7) sets forth the generic names and 
definitions that the Commission has established for synthetic fibers. 
Rule 8 (16 CFR 303.8) describes the procedures for establishing new 
generic names.

B. Procedural History

    DuPont applied to the Commission on February 5, 2001, for a new 
polyester fiber subclass name and definition, and supplemented its 
application with additional information and test data on March 18, 
2001, and August 23, 2001.\1\

[[Page 70836]]

DuPont stated that the T400 fiber is an inherently elastic, 
manufactured textile fiber consisting of two substantially different 
forms of polyester fibers. DuPont maintained further that T400 is 
distinguished from commercially available fibers by a significant and 
long-lived stretch and recovery characteristic fitting between 
conventional textured polyesters and spandex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DuPont's petition and supplements thereto are on the 
rulemaking record of this proceeding. This material, as well as the 
comments that were filed in this proceeding, are available for 
public inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 
5 U.S.C. 552, and the Commission's rules of practice, 16 CFR 4.11, 
at the Consumer Response Center, Public Reference Section, Room 130, 
Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC. The comments that were filed are found under the Rules and 
Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, 16 
CFR part 303, Matter No. P948404, ``DuPont Generic Fiber Petition 
Rulemaking.'' The comments also may be viewed on the Commission's 
Web site at http://www.ftc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contending that the unique structure and characteristics of fibers 
made from T400 are inadequately described under existing generic names 
listed in the Textile Rules, DuPont petitioned the Commission to 
establish a new generic subclass name and definition. After an initial 
analysis with the assistance of a textile expert, the Commission 
determined that DuPont's proposed new fiber technically falls within 
Rule 7(c)'s definition of ``polyester.''\2\ The Commission further 
determined, however, that DuPont's application for a new subclass name 
and definition merited further consideration. Accordingly, on May 21, 
2001, the Commission announced that it had issued DuPont the 
designation ``DP 0002'' for temporary use in identifying T400 fiber 
pending a final determination on the merits of the application for a 
new generic fiber subclass name and definition. The Commission staff 
further analyzed the application, and on February 15, 2002 (67 FR 
7104), the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(``NPR'') detailing the technical aspects of DuPont's fiber, and 
requesting public comment on DuPont's application. On April 19, 2002, 
the comment period closed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Rule 7(c) defines ``polyester'' as ``[a] manufactured fiber 
in which the fiber-forming substance is any long chain synthetic 
polymer composed of at least 85% by weight of an ester of a 
substituted aromatic carboxylic acid, including but not restricted 
to substituted terephthalate units, [formula omitted] and para 
substituted hydroxy-benzoate units, [formula omitted].'' 16 CFR 
303.7(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Fiber and Solicitation of Comments in the NPR

A. The Commission's Criteria for Granting a New Generic Fiber Subclass 
Name and Definition, and Related Issues

    In the NPR, the Commission solicited comment on whether DuPont's 
application meets the Commission's criteria for granting applications 
for new generic fiber subclass names.
    The Commission articulated standards for establishing a new generic 
fiber ``subclass'' in the proceeding to allow use of the name 
``lyocell'' as an alternative generic description for a specifically 
defined subcategory of ``rayon'' fiber, pursuant to 16 CFR 303.7(d). 
There, the Commission noted that:

    Where appropriate, in considering applications for new generic 
names for fibers that are of the same general chemical composition 
as those for which a generic name already has been established, 
rather than of a chemical composition that is radically different, 
but that have distinctive properties of importance to the general 
public as a result of a new method of manufacture or their 
substantially differentiated physical characteristics, such as their 
fiber structure, the Commission may allow such fiber to be 
designated in required information disclosures by either its generic 
name or, alternatively, by its ``subclass'' name. The Commission 
will consider this disposition when the distinctive feature or 
features of the subclass fiber make it suitable for uses for which 
other fibers under the established generic name would not be suited, 
or would be significantly less well suited.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 60 FR 62352, 62353 (Dec. 6, 1995).

    Thus, a new generic fiber subclass may be appropriate in cases 
where the proposed subclass fiber: (1) Has the same general chemical 
composition as an established generic fiber category; (2) has 
distinctive properties of importance to the general public as a result 
of a new method of manufacture or substantially differentiated physical 
characteristics, such as fiber structure; and (3) the distinctive 
feature(s) make the fiber suitable for uses for which other fibers 
under the established generic name would not be suited, or would be 
significantly less well suited.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The criteria for establishing a new generic subcategory are 
different from the criteria to establish a new generic category. The 
Commission's criteria for granting applications for new generic 
names are as follows: (1) The fiber for which a generic name is 
requested must have a chemical composition radically different from 
other fibers, and that distinctive chemical composition must result 
in distinctive physical properties of significance to the general 
public; (2) the fiber must be in active commercial use or such use 
must be immediately foreseen; and (3) the granting of the generic 
name must be of importance to the consuming public at large, rather 
than to a small group of knowledgeable professionals such as 
purchasing officers for large Government agencies. The Commission 
believes it is in the public interest to prevent the proliferation 
of generic names, and will adhere to a stringent application of 
these criteria in consideration of any future applications for 
generic names, and in a systematic review of any generic names 
previously granted that no longer meet these criteria. The 
Commission announced these criteria on Dec. 11, 1973, at 38 FR 
34112, and later clarified and reaffirmed them on Dec. 6, 1995, 60 
FR 62353, on May 23, 1997, 62 FR 28343, on Jan. 6, 1998, 63 FR 447 
and 63 FR 449, and on Nov. 17, 2000, 65 FR 69486, on Feb. 15, 2002, 
67 FR 7104, and on May 24, 2002, 67 FR 36551.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the established 24 generic names for manufactured fibers, 
there are three cases where such generic name alternatives may be used: 
(1) Pursuant to Rule 7(d), 16 CFR 303.7(d), within the generic category 
``rayon,'' the term ``lyocell'' may be used as an alternative generic 
description for a specifically defined subcategory of rayon fiber; (2) 
pursuant to Rule 7(e), 16 CFR 303.7(e), within the generic category 
``acetate,'' the term ``triacetate'' may be used as an alternative 
generic description for a specifically defined subcategory of acetate 
fiber; and (3) pursuant to Rule 7(j), 16 CFR 303.7(j), within the 
generic category ``rubber,'' the term ``lastrile'' may be used as an 
alternative generic description for a specifically defined subcategory 
of rubber fiber.
    Although the Commission's NPR announced that DuPont's fiber 
technically falls within Rule 7(c)'s definition of polyester, it noted 
that DuPont's application may meet the Commission's standard for a 
subclass name. Alternatively, the Commission stated that T400 may fit 
within the current definition of polyester in Rule 7(c), with or 
without need for clarification. Therefore, the Commission requested 
public comment on whether to: (1) Broaden Rule 7(c)'s definition of 
polyester to better describe the allegedly unique molecular structure 
and physical characteristics of T400 and any similar fibers (without 
creating a new subclass for T400); (2) amend Rule 7(c)'s definition of 
polyester by creating a separate subclass name and definition for T400 
and other similar qualifying fibers within the polyester category; or 
(3) deny DuPont's application because T400 fiber fits within Rule 
7(c)'s definition of polyester without need for any change.

B. The NPR

1. Fiber Description and Proposed Subclass Name and Definition
    The NPR provided a detailed description, taken from DuPont's 
application, of T400's chemical composition and physical and chemical 
properties.\5\ As a result of T400's fiber structure, DuPont maintained 
that T400 has the following distinctive properties that would be 
significant to consumers: (1) Stretch and recovery power that is far 
superior to that of any textured fiber, including textured polyesters; 
(2) the superior stretch and recovery property does not degrade or 
``sag'' over time with normal use and washings,

[[Page 70837]]

compared to textured fibers, including polyesters; and (3) a softer 
``silkier'' feel or ``hand'' than textured polyester fibers. DuPont 
asserted that T400 will fill a growing and unmet consumer demand for 
stretch garments with fibers that can yield quality stretch and 
recovery without degrading over time like textured polyester fibers. 
DuPont further contended that it would be confusing to consumers if 
T400 is called simply ``polyester.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 67 FR 7104, at 7105-7109 (Feb. 15, 2002). For brevity's 
sake, the Commission is providing a simplified description of the 
fiber in this notice, and refers those who wish to see detailed 
technical information about the fiber to the earlier description in 
the NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DuPont, therefore, petitioned the Commission to establish the 
generic name ``elasterell-p'' as an alternative to, and a subclass of, 
``polyester.'' In addition, DuPont proposed that the Commission add the 
following sentence to the current definition of polyester in Rule 7(c) 
to define T400 and similar fibers as a subclass of polyester:

    Where the fiber is a multicomponent and exhibits inherent (not 
mechanically induced) recoverable stretch of at least 35% upon 
loading with 185 mg/dtex and unloading to 5.4 mg/dtex when tested in 
accordance with ASTM test D6720, the term ``elasterell-p'' may be 
used as a generic description of the fiber.

    The effect of DuPont's proposed amendment would be to allow use of 
the name ``elasterell-p'' as an alternative to the generic name 
``polyester'' for the subcategory of polyester fibers meeting the 
further criteria contained in the sentence added by the proposed 
amendment.
2. The Parallel European Proceeding
    During this proceeding, but after the comment period closed, the 
Commission staff was informed that in May 2002, the International 
Bureau for the Standardization of Man-Made Fibres (``BISFA'')\6\ 
determined that as a result of T400's distinguishing attributes, and 
the technology utilized to manufacture it, DuPont's fiber merited a new 
generic name and definition. Accordingly, BISFA has established the 
following generic name and definition for DuPont's T400 fiber:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ BISFA, founded in 1928, and located in Brussels, Belgium is 
the international association of man-made fiber producers. BISFA 
establishes generic names and definitions for man-made fibers and 
procedures and test methods for different categories of man-made 
fibers. It also sets general rules for the settling of disputes 
between sellers and buyers of man-made fibers. BISFA provides an 
international voice for the man-made fiber industry in these matters 
and promotes the adoption of its methods and terminology by other 
standard-setting organizations.

``multelastester:'' fibre formed by interaction of 2 or more 
chemically distinct macromolecules (of which none exceeds 85% by 
mass) which contains ester groups as dominant functional unit (at 
least 66%) and which, if stretched at least 100%, durably and 
rapidly reverts substantially to its unstretched length when the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tension is removed.

    In accordance with BISFA's policies and procedures, the BISFA-
approved name, ``multelastester,'' and its definition have been 
communicated to the International Organization for Standardization 
(``ISO'') for introduction into ISO Standard 2076, which includes man-
made textile fiber generic names and definitions. BISFA representatives 
expect the ISO proceeding to conclude in 2003.
    The Commission has taken notice of this proceeding because the 
Textile Rules incorporated by reference the generic fiber names and 
definitions for manufactured fibers that existed in ISO Standard 2076 
in 1989. The Commission also amended the Rules once to incorporate a 
revised version of that Standard.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 65 FR 75154 (Dec. 1, 2000), as well as the first 
paragraph of 16 CFR 303.7, incorporating by reference ISO generic 
names and definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Discussion of the Public Comments
    The Commission received comments from the American Fiber 
Manufacturers Association, Inc. (``AFMA''), and Nan Ya Plastics 
Corporation, America (``Nan Ya''), a U.S. manufacturer of polyester for 
the packaging and textile industries. AFMA does not object to amending 
Rule 7(c) of the Textile Rules by creating a separate subclass name and 
definition for T400 and other similar qualifying fibers within the 
polyester category. AFMA, however, recommended that the Commission take 
account of the parallel European proceeding, and suggested that the 
Commission use compatible nomenclature in establishing the new generic 
subclass to avoid confusion in the marketplace.
    Nan Ya, although a member of AFMA, opposed creating a separate 
subclass name and definition for T400. Specifically, Nan Ya commented 
that DuPont's fiber is not sufficiently unique to merit a separate 
generic subclass. Nan Ya stated that what may be unique about DuPont's 
fiber is the composition of the particular polyester polymers selected 
for the components, perhaps coupled with specific spinning and heat 
treatment conditions, to produce a polyester bicomponent fiber that 
exhibits properties especially suitable for use in stretch garments. 
Nan Ya stated, however, that these conditions, which may be patentable, 
result in a polyester bicomponent fiber with some properties that 
differ only in degree from the properties of other polyester 
bicomponent fibers, and not in a fiber worthy of being designated by a 
new generic subclass. Nan Ya stated that bicomponent yarns in which 
both components are polyester currently are manufactured by several 
companies.
    Nan Ya commented further that creating a subclass for T400 could 
result in giving DuPont an unfair competitive advantage in the 
marketplace. For example, Nan Ya suggested that DuPont's patent 
protection for its T400 fiber and manufacturing process could prevent 
other manufacturers from making or selling any fiber falling within the 
new subclass. Further, Nan Ya stated that creating a new subclass would 
cause consumer confusion because manufacturers producing polyester 
bicomponent fibers with characteristics only slightly outside the 
parameters proposed by DuPont, whether to achieve other desired 
properties or to avoid patent infringement, would be required to call 
their product polyester, and would not be permitted to use the new 
subclass name. The result would be that polyester bicomponent fibers 
with similar characteristics, but different generic names, would be 
sold to consumers.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Nan Ya also proposed expansion of 16 CFR 303.10(c) to 
include bicomponent fibers in which the two components are of the 
same fiber. Such a proposal, however, does not adequately address 
DuPont's petition, would require an additional public comment period 
and, therefore, is beyond the scope of this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Discussion of the Three Criteria for Granting New Generic Subclass 
Names

a. T400 Fiber's Chemical Composition

    The materials DuPont submitted show that while T400 has the same 
general chemical composition as other polyester fibers, it also has a 
molecular and fiber structure that differs from chemically homogeneous 
polyesters. Although each of the two components of T400 is from the 
same polymer class, DuPont has combined the two chemically different 
polyesters in a side-by-side arrangement. A helical crimp resulting 
from the differential shrinkage of the two different polyesters in T400 
results in a level of increased inherent stretch and recovery 
uncharacteristic of chemically homogeneous polyesters. The stretch and 
recovery is not physically induced like texturizing, but is inherent in 
the helical fiber structure, and the stretch recovery power is 
sustained and superior over time. Thus, DuPont's application meets the 
first criterion for granting a new generic fiber subclass name.

[[Page 70838]]

b. T400's Distinctive Properties as a Result of a New Method of 
Manufacture or Substantially Differentiated Physical Characteristics, 
Such as Fiber Structure

    The materials submitted by DuPont also show that the most notable 
characteristic (and of greatest importance to consumers) of T400 is its 
stretch and recovery power, which is superior to that of chemically 
homogeneous polyesters. This property is a direct result of the fiber 
structure of T400. DuPont compared the stretch and recovery of several 
false twist textured fibers to T400. The range of recoverable stretch 
values for T400, which is well above 35%, reflects the fact that DuPont 
can vary the stretch and recovery of the fiber by adjusting the spinner 
conditions. The recoverable stretch values for the polyester fibers 
DuPont described as 2GT, 3GT, and 4GT are below 35%. An additional 
distinctive property of T400 is that its superior stretch and recovery 
does not degrade over time as compared to some textured fibers, 
including polyesters. The uniqueness of T400 is derived from the 
natural helical coil imparted by the differential shrinkage of the two 
polymer components. T400's differentiated physical characteristics, 
therefore, satisfy this second criterion.

c. T400's Distinctive Features Make the Fiber Suitable for Uses for 
Which Other Polyester Fibers Would Not Be Suited, or Would Be 
Significantly Less Well Suited

    The evidence submitted by DuPont supports the Commission's 
conclusion that textured polyesters are not suitable, or not as 
suitable, for imparting the significant stretch to certain garments, 
such as sports apparel, that consumers may expect or desire, and that 
T400 is a suitable stretch component. Thus, DuPont's application has 
satisfied the Commission that T400 is suitable for uses for which other 
polyester fibers are not suited, or not as well suited. Accordingly, 
the Commission agrees with DuPont that the granting of a generic 
subclass name to describe T400 is of importance to the general public, 
and not just a few knowledgeable professionals. A new generic subclass 
name will enable consumers to identify textile fiber products, such as 
sports apparel, containing T400 (and other inherently elastic 
multicomponent polyester fibers) that exhibit significant inherent 
stretch and recovery power that does not degrade over time.
5. Conclusion
    Based on its review of the comments and the BISFA proceeding, and 
in consultation with its expert, the Commission has concluded that 
T400: (1) Has the same general chemical composition as an established 
generic fiber category (polyester); (2) has distinctive properties of 
importance to the general public as a result of a new method of 
manufacture or substantially differentiated physical characteristics, 
such as fiber structure (e.g., inherent elasticity); and (3) that its 
distinctive feature(s) make the fiber suitable for uses for which other 
fibers under the established polyester generic name would not be 
suited, or would be significantly less well suited. Specifically, the 
side-by-side molecular structure of the multicomponent polyester fiber, 
T400, differs distinctly from chemically homogenous polyester fibers by 
possessing intrinsic elastic properties. The dissimilarities are due to 
the physical interaction of the two chemically distinct polyesters 
present, which result not only in inherent elasticity/recovery 
properties, but also in a changed structure. As a multicomponent 
polyester fiber, T400 has a uniform helical crimp that is not present 
in a chemically homogeneous polyester, even after texturing.
    Accordingly, although T400 arguably is comparable to other 
multicomponent polyester fibers (as Nan Ya pointed out) there are 
sufficient differences to merit a new subclass designation. Therefore, 
the Commission is amending Rule 7(c) to adopt and define the generic 
subclass name ``elasterell-p,'' and to allow use of the name 
``elasterell-p'' as an alternative to the generic name ``polyester'' 
for that subclass of fiber. However, because T400 also is arguably 
comparable to other multicomponent polyester fibers, other companies 
that manufacture fibers satisfying the definition may use the subclass 
name in making required fiber content disclosures on labels.
    Although BISFA has adopted and reported a different name to ISO for 
inclusion in ISO Standard 2076 to define T400 and a broad class of 
multicomponent fibers, BISFA's definition does not work under the 
Commission's regulatory scheme. BISFA's definition includes fibers that 
may not in all cases satisfy the definition of ``polyester'' in Rule 
7(c).\9\ Thus, BISFA's precise definition is somewhat too broad to be 
permissible as a ``polyester'' generic fiber subclass definition within 
Rule 7(c).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The BISFA definition requires that the fiber-forming polymer 
be composed of at least 66% by weight of an ester, while Rule 7(c)'s 
definition of polyester requires at least 85% by weight of an ester.
    \10\ At the same time, when approved by ISO, the term 
``multelastester,'' and its somewhat broader definition, could be 
recognized by the Commission by amending Rule 7 to incorporate a 
newly recognized ISO name, as we have done previously. That process 
does not create the problems that are inherent in amending the 
Commission's Rules to use the BISFA definition, which conflicts with 
the FTC's long-established definition of polyester.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To minimize conflict with BISFA's proposal, however, the Commission 
is revising the definition proposed in the NPR. The new definition of 
elasterell-p defines it generically in terms of its chemical 
composition and focuses less on its physical recoverable stretch 
characteristic.\11\ This definition is consistent with the definition 
of ``polyester'' in Rule 7(c) and it is consistent with, but a bit 
narrower than, the definition of multelastester adopted by BISFA.\12\ 
Further, because it is written in terms of the chemical structure of 
the fiber, it is consistent with the other generic fiber definitions in 
Rule 7. It also does not unnecessarily exclude any multicomponent 
polyester fiber from the subclass, which should address Nan Ya's 
primary concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Accordingly, the revised definition no longer includes an 
American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') test 
procedure, as proposed in the NPR. This test procedure related to 
the fiber's physical characteristics and is not needed under the 
revised, chemical-based definition.
    \12\ The proposed definition varies from the BISFA definition 
slightly so that a fiber satisfying the elasterell-p subclass 
definition can be designated in required information disclosures by 
either its generic name, ``polyester,'' or, alternatively, by its 
subclass name. In addition, the Commission uses the terms 
``polymers'' and ``weight'' in Rule 7's generic fiber name 
definitions, rather than the synonymous ISO terms ``macromolecules'' 
and ``mass.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Commission amends 
Rule 7(c) of the Textile Rules by adding the following sentence at the 
end:

    Where the fiber is formed by the interaction of two or more 
chemically distinct polymers (of which none exceeds 85% by weight), 
and contains ester groups as the dominant functional unit (at least 
85% by weight of the total polymer content of the fiber), and which, 
if stretched at least 100%, durably and rapidly reverts 
substantially to its unstretched length when the tension is removed, 
the term elasterell-p may be used as a generic description of the 
fiber.

III. Effective Date

    The Commission is making the amendments effective today, November 
27, 2002, as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 553(d), because the amendments do 
not create new obligations under the Rule; rather, they merely create a 
fiber name and definition that the public may use to comply with the 
Rule.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In the NPR, the Commission tentatively concluded that the

[[Page 70839]]

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an initial 
regulatory analysis, 5 U.S.C. 603-604, did not apply to the proposal 
because the amendments, if promulgated, would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
Commission believed that the proposed amendments would impose no 
additional obligations, penalties, or costs. The amendments simply 
would allow covered companies to use a new generic name as an 
alternative to an existing generic name for that defined subclass of 
fiber, and would impose no additional labeling requirements. To ensure, 
however, that no substantial economic impact was overlooked, the 
Commission solicited public comment in the NPR on the effects of the 
proposed amendments on costs, profits, competitiveness of, and 
employment in small entities. 67 FR 7104, at 7109 (Feb. 15, 2002).
    No comments were received on this issue. Accordingly, the 
Commission hereby certifies, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the amendments promulgated today will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    These amendments do not constitute ``collection[s] of information'' 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 
163, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 (as amended), and its implementing 
regulations, 5 CFR 1320 et seq. Those procedures for establishing 
generic names that do constitute collections of information, 16 CFR 
303.8, have been submitted to OMB, which has approved them and assigned 
them control number 3084-0101.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 303

    Labeling, Textile, Trade Practices.

VI. Text of Amendments

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, 16 CFR part 303 is amended 
as follows:

PART 303--RULES AND REGULATIONS UNDER THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS 
IDENTIFICATION ACT

    1. The authority citation for part 303 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 7(c) of the Textile Fiber Products 
Identification Act (15 U.S.C. 70e(c)).


    2. In Sec.  303.7, paragraph (c) is amended by adding a sentence at 
the end, to read as follows:


Sec.  303.7  Generic names and definitions for manufactured fibers.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    Where the fiber is formed by the interaction of two or more 
chemically distinct polymers (of which none exceeds 85% by weight), and 
contains ester groups as the dominant functional unit (at least 85% by 
weight of the total polymer content of the fiber), and which, if 
stretched at least 100%, durably and rapidly reverts substantially to 
its unstretched length when the tension is removed, the term 
elasterell-p may be used as a generic description of the fiber.
* * * * *

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-30085 Filed 11-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P